Itta/331/2022 Of Majeti Madhavi v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 331 of 2022 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, [1961]against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, [Hyderabad ]Bench'A',Hyderabad, in ITA No.1490lHydl2018, for assessment Year [2008-09 ][dated ][28-06-]2O22 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][(Appeals)-1 ]['1,]Hyderabad, ITA No.0148 to 01SO/DCIT CC 1(3), Hyd/ClT(A)-1 [1113-14 ][dated:10-08-]2016, prefened against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax]Central Circle-6, Hyderabad, PAN/G R No. , dated [27 ][-O3-2O1 ][3.] Between: Majeti Madhavi, H. No.1'1-25-15, K.T. Road, Kothapet, [Vijayawada-S2OOO1.] ...APPELLANT AND The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax(Central), Aayakar Bhawan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004. ...RESPONOENT lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section [',l51 ]CPC r/w Section 260A(2)(a) of the lncome TaxAct, 1961, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of days 42 infiling the above appeal, as otherwise the Petitioner/Appellant will be put toirreparable loss and severe hardship.Act, 1961, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of days 42 infiling the above appeal, as otherwise the Petitioner/Appellant will be put toirreparable loss and severe hardship. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI DUNDU SASHANK, Learned Counsel appearingon behalf of SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, Learned StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Department The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTYI.T.T.A.No.33L ot 2022 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Si ,lusttce P,SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Dundu Sashank, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of Mr. Dundu Manmohart, learned counsel for theappellant and Ms.K. Mamata Choudary, iearned StandingCounseI for the Income Tax Dcpartment, for the respondent. 2. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant under Section260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order [passed ][by]the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, [Bench-A,]Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No.l49OlHydl20 IB, dated 28.06.2022. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal [rejected the]appeal of the assessee on the ground that the [salrle ][was ][barred]by limitation with a delay [of ][(1,140) days.] 4. I)erusal ol the pleadings r,,,ould reveal that appellant hadfiled different appeals before the learned Tribunal for differentAssessment Years 5. in the instant case, it u,as for the year 2008-09. For theyear 2OO9-2O 10, it was I.T,A.No.675 lHyd/2017, and for the year2Oll-12, it was I.T.A.No.898lHydl20 17. The said appeals weretaken up together by the learned Tribunal and the learnedTribunal reachcd to the conclusion that since the appellantsthcrein have failed to shorv sulficient and plausible explanationfor the delay or.r their part in filing the said appeals before thelearned Tribunal, the appealswere rejected by the learnedTribunal 4. I)erusal ol the pleadings r,,,ould reveal that appellant hadfiled different appeals before the learned Tribunal for differentAssessment Years 5. in the instant case, it u,as for the year 2008-09. For theyear 2OO9-2O 10, it was I.T,A.No.675 lHyd/2017, and for the year2Oll-12, it was I.T.A.No.898lHydl20 17. The said appeals weretaken up together by the learned Tribunal and the learnedTribunal reachcd to the conclusion that since the appellantsthcrein have failed to shorv sulficient and plausible explanationfor the delay or.r their part in filing the said appeals before thelearned Tribunal, the appealswere rejected by the learnedTribunal 6. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through thedate of events that transpired and also tried to impress upon thefact that the appellant (a qualilied Doctor) was not too aware ofthe legal ir-rtricacies involved in the judicial proceedings and wasalso not arvare of the recourse to be availed of, that too within astipulated period of time. The said contentions on behalf of theappellant does not find too much of force, more particularly, forthe reasons that have been considered by the Tribunal itself !: {.r while considering the case of the appellant on the application forcondonation of de1ay. Moreover, what is also reflected was thatthe appellant was a1l along represented by a competent 1ega1expert and also an expert in tax matter. It is also pertinent totake note of the fact that appellant herself is a qualified medicalpractitioner and, as such, she must have definitely been wellaware of the requirement of payment of tax and also theconsequence of the failure of payment of the tax timely. Theappellant cannot be equated or considered in parity with alayman or a rustic villager so as to be given any sympatheticconsideration7. In the instant case, the delay of period in filing the presentappeal is more than three (03) years. Given the factual matrix ofthe case and also taking note of the entire contents of theimpugned order which also deals with the appeals filed by theappellant in respect of Assessment Years for the subsequentperiod, we are not impressed upon by the submissions made bythe learned Counsel for the appellant calling for interferencewith the impugned order. nII B. The appeal thus lails and is accordingly [dismissed. ][No]CoStS. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if [any,]shall stand closed Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAOJOTTT.REGtSTRARqrjSECT|ON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ['A ][', ]Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax [(Appeals)-1 ]1, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-6, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate 5. One CC to SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENTloPUClloPUCl 6. Two CD Copies kam iI HIGH COURT PSK,J & LNA,J DATED:21 10812023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.331 of 2022 THE APPEALIS DISMISSED gTATli 6.;..\)i ,'al-,cFt[ls]22tD...' [./]'.'' . [,.,. ], 1[lP2)]